Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and nominators may also request subject-specific feedback. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.
To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on.
A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewers' comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.
He wrote sad songs and got paid by the tear. They’re motel masterpieces about dream attacks and beer drinking robots. His mother named him after a king and he was the son of “possibly the most evil man in America”.
In 2003, he was hospitalised for approaching death; shined out in the wild kindness; and left this world behind on the back of a black camel.
Hoping to get this article to FAC; would like to get some preemptive insight. Particularly interested in thoughts on the in-line citations. There's a particular issue I have with the in-line citations; there's more blue than a Massachusetts polling station. I reckon a citation change is best. Thanks, DMT Biscuit (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because for upcoming FAC.
Thanks, Wingwatchers (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Can you review if I gather everything for the animation section, @HumanxAnthro:? Wingwatchers (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
This definitely looks a lot bigger than when I read it, which is great to see. However, there are sentences I noticed with obvious flaws. For example "Golberg had to visualize ahead the production tools and the extra technical visual test needed to complete for this particularly conformity", "Hyun-Min Lee served as animation supervisor for Anna, while Wayne Unten reprised his role from the first film as animation supervisor for Elsa, whereas Steve Golberg served as the animation supervisor." Also, "Before animation began, Unten showed various scenes of superheroes like Frozone to the animators working on Elsa as examples of what not to emulate." It would be better here if you stated near the start of the sentence that Unten showed not what to emulate.
Additionally, the section's already so big that, given what other sources could be out there but I may've missed and how it could expand the overall production section even more so, the production section may need to be split into another article to avoid this one being WP:TOOBIG. I've had a similar thought way moreso with the production section of Frozen (2013 film)]. I mean, look at how gigantic the subsections are overthere.
I also notice Frozen II is missing a commercial analysis section, which the article on the first film has in spades. Frozen II broke so many records at the box office I don't imagine no box office analyst discussing the film, but is that the case? 👨x🐱 (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I fixed the grammatical mistakes and reduced the overall length. Is that better now? Wingwatchers (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I disagree cutting the length of the section itself is the solution. We need to be sure we're give WP:DUEWEIGHT to the film's overwhelming amount of coverage, and that include article splitting. If there's that much details about the animation production in HQ sources, we should have that much represented on the encyclopedia. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
@HumanxAnthro, I didn't cut it, but simply moved them and moreover summarized them. Also, put a seperate sub-section for design. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Didn't catch that hehehe 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey all. I've listed this for PR so I could possibly get it to GA before its 50th anniversary in June. I'd appreciate some assistance with the flow (as it currently stands the concept and themes section repeats a lot of info from the songs section I added last year). I also could use some help with the influence section (there's like none currently) and possibly anything you can think of. If all goes well this will be Bowie's final '70s album to reach GA status.
I've listed this article for peer review because there are some sentences whose sources are not posted and I have doubts about their authenticity, and furthermore, it is difficult for me to check the sources other than web sources. I hope that the peer review will clarify and share the problems of this article, and lead to the improvement and development of the content.
Thanks, Kj4bFan (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Reopening peer review in arts category since there was not much feedback where it was listed before.
First time here - I'm listing this article for peer review because I really want to get this up to GA status for the possibility of it being nominated for FA next August 11 (20 year anniversary). I've spent a lot of time rearranging the article and adding sources - it was pretty barren before, and a lot of text was completely irrelevant to the point it was nominated for deletion last year. I can imagine there's a lot of improvements that I could still work on however (improving wording and conciseness). I've been using articles such as Cave Story, Ikaruga and Crash Bandicoot (another page in the review process) as examples of what the page should structure like, but I'm still not entirely sure. I don't know if the page is already alright in the image area or if it needs an image of the developer. It's my first time doing this, so all input is very much appreciated. Thank you very much :) Kettleonwater (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because…
Some IPs have changed things on the article and I'm unsure as to whether or not the IPs were constructive or not. If this is the wrong place to do this, let me know. I was sent here from the Teahouse.
Thanks, Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello there! Thank you for listing this page for peer review. I am quite unfamiliar with the more complex side of Wikipedia, but regarding the IPs, from what I understand from Wikipedia:Vandalism and observed in the editing history, I think the case of the IP edits may be classified as "a dedicated non-distributed attack" as multiple IPs of similar structure have the same purpose and are used only once or very few times. Recently I have made a request for semi-protection so hopefully if that move is also okay...
Sincerely, Suzu2309 10:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Though I made some minor edits back in 2020, it was Spring and Summer 2021 when the article was greatly expanded and improved to its present state. Simultaneously, I've been working on the Russian-language version of the article; recently this month, the Russian-language article passed RA. Not sure if the English-language can pass GA, yet I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see some outside perspective.
Thanks, Gleb95 (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC).
Have you checked to make sure that you the first sentence follows the relevant MOS policy for biographies of people with multiple names or given names versus anglicized names? I haven't checked, but I feel like I've seen other biography articles handle it differently.
I don't think anglicize should be capitalized.
Footnote a: I don't think you should use bold for "Simon" in there. Maybe it should be in quotation marks or italics. I know you're supposed to use italics for using a word to refer to itself, like the use of son-of-a-bitch in the lede of John Neal (writer) (something I learned in the Featured Article nomination process).
Typically, nothing in the lede should need a citation because ledes should typically include only content summarized from cited content in the body of the article. So, if the last sentence of the lede draws from a fact cited in the body, you can discard that citation. If that fact is not cited elsewhere in the article, consider adding it in, then deleting the citation from the lede.
First sentence of the body says way too much for one sentence. Maybe turn the semicolon into a period.
I recommend this rule for Wikilinking: first instance in the lede, plus first instance in the infobox, plus first instance in the body, plus any instances in captions and tables. With that in mind, I recommend Wikilinking mezzotint the first time it comes up in the body even though it comes up in the lede and infobox. See MOS:DUPLINK
"At some point" — is that phrase necessary?
"gained an the attention"
I think this article overuses semicolons. The first sentence of second paragraph of Work section has three and ends with one!
"Beside Aside from" — shows up twice.
First sentence of second paragraph of Work section: I see that the concept of this sentence is well cited, but I think you should add a citation specifically for "spare and powerful" if you are quoting someone. If instead you are paraphrasing, you should remove the quotation marks.
More in a little bit! Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Here's more:
What is "brilliance effect"?
"such as brilliance effect, drawing of the figures and details" — should there be a serial comma after "figures"? The serial comma is used elsewhere in the article, like the first sentence of the Work section, and the article should be consistent.
"prnts"
Was it Salaman or Killanin who said "fresh artistic sensitiveness"? Having a combo citation at the end of the sentence makes that unclear.
Why is Walpole's 1879 publication listed in the Sources section but not the 1826 and 1849 publications? If you put them there, you could abbreviate citations 1 and 2 like the others. I guess you could say the same about Barhill 1996 and Jeffree 1996.
Are there any relevant external links to share?
No available portrait of Simon for the infobox?
Any other relevant images out there of places he lived or worked to further illustrate the article outside the gallery of his works?
Is there anything to put in a Legacy section, like things in the world named after Simon?
Overall, great use of citations. I appreciate a well referenced article and clearly you did a lot of research and kept a lot of notes. I took a look at what it looked like before you started expanding it last year and I can see you did a lot. I think if you take care of these issues, this could probably be a decent candidate for GA status. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because, as usual, I think it's a good candidate for GA and I want to get some outside perspective on what improvements it might need.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have just finished some major edits to get the article up for an FA nomination. As such I need a fresh set of eyes that can review this for anything that might hinder that process or anything that the article needs work on.
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get this article to FA-status. Any comments on how I could improve this article to FA-status would be welcome.
@Pamzeis Article looks good, but tried to reduce more quotes as possible. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Wingwatchers! I've reduced some of the quotes. If you have any other comments, please share them! I would appreciate as many comments as possible. Thank you. Pamzeis (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Can Critical reception be changed to Critical response? The citation section's unequally organized column error needed to be fixed. Possibly too much links in External links? @PamzeisWingwatchers (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Here are my responses to your suggestions:
Not done: per MOS:VAR, there's no obvious/substantial need for this (MOS:TVRECEPTION does not mention the heading). The article has had this subheading since late-July 2011 (over 10 years).
YPartly done: it's not an error: the reason it's like this is because of a cite bundle confirming the information (all of them are needed). As far as I know, there is no policy or guideline mandating this; however, I have removed some of the unnecessary sources which are just press releases.
Removed TV.com external link because the site seems to be dead.
Thank you for your comments, Wingwatchers. I have responded to them and adjusted the article accordingly. Please let me know if you have any others. Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Maybe it's just a loading issue on my end, but I couldn't see the storyboard in any of the source URLs for File:Mlp fim storyboard sample.png, even its archived link
While I currently can't promise any commentary on the prose, I at least hope this image review is helpful. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
You're quite welcome, and that definitely is a better fit, especially with more details on the animation/storyboard process. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I have been working on this article for a featured article nomination — something that I have never done before — and I would appreciate any help that I can get. I have tried my best to see that the article meets the criteria; I have also taken inspirations from how other featured articles are written, and I have incorporated their basic concepts. I have invested a great amount of time in writing this article and it would mean a lot if I can elevate it to featured article status. Please do not hesitate to point out even the most minor of points. As I have never gone through this process before, every little detail will help. Thank you. — The Most ComfortableChair 12:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I will plan to go through this article and comment to the best of my ability. Unfortunately I'm out of town next week (though not offline), so I will likely not be able to finish until early August. Eddie891TalkWork 16:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I plan on going through this and commenting, too. A bit busy. Feel free to strike anything you take care of or don't find concerning. My initial thoughts fairly random and minor, since they just came up while scrolling around.
You can install this script to catch Harvard errors. There's one for Kimbell Art Museum.
On that note about Kimbell, the FA criteria refer to "high-quality reliable sources". It is fairly unsettled as to what this means. What makes a Facebook post "high-quality" in your judgment? For me, it's not a concern, since it is a post by a reputable place - but you may find this question coming up.
where he was a member of the board of directors and past president - awkward phrasing, to me, though not sure why. consider something like "where he had been a member of the board of directors and a past president".
can we say a bit more about the The William B. Jordan and Robert Dean Brownlee Endowment? was it formed while he was still living, or was it organized following his death? the first mention of it comes after he had died, so this question is natural to me. likewise Jordan and Brownlee donated over 80 different works of art to the museum - was their endowment run by them before he died, in which case this was at Jordan's direction, or was it from Brownlee's direction? I'm not sure there's even an answer here, but if there is, I would be interested to know
May 20, 1995 "for his contributions - comma after yr?
Jordan was convinced that it was a work by Yáñez, and Jordan made the purchase with Meadows' support. Subsequently, it was "universally regarded as one of the artist's masterpieces"; it became one of the more important works in the Meadows Museum - how did it become recognized as a work of Yáñez? maybe it's not known, but we're skipping over that if there's sources that say
a few uses of the word "noted"; see MOS:SAID for whether you think it is justifiable or not. (the concern is generally POV wording - I don't think that's there, but it is good to note anyway)
In the caption Jordan became the founding director of the Meadows Museum in 1967. - it's obvious to me that this is the museum in context, but maybe we can make it the subject of the caption? such as: "The Meadows Museum, where Jordan became the founding director in 1967." maybe not necessary, but feels better (to me)
the "MeadowsMuseum1" and "MeadowsMuseum2" are odd to me - maybe it's standard practice (I've never had to cite two webpages from the same site in harvard), but thought to let you know
maybe I am misunderstanding but there is some inconsistency in serial comma usage. compare: Four Figures on a Step (1655–1660) by Murillo and Portrait of Don Pedro de Barberana y Aparregui (1631–1633) by Velázquez with other antiquities such as silver works, ceramics, and sculptures
All for now. Will try to return. Again, initial comments are random and probably wrong; just what I found while scrolling around. Urve (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm planning to nominated this as a Featured Article in the future. It was upped to Good Article status in 2017, and since then has been expanded due to new information relating to the game's post-release support and new development information. This may well have caused grammar and stylistic issues that need addressing or lessening before the nomination. There is also the question of whether the current sources will be admissible for a featured article.
I'm listing this article for peer review because I'm hoping to get it up to Featured Article status in time for the series' 25th anniversary this September. I've already spent a good chunk of the month doing prep work, but as far as FAs go, I'm sure there's definitely a few improvements I'm still missing out on. For example, the page is still relatively bare in the image area, so I'd especially like suggestions on what points are most worth visually illustrating. I do intend on getting an image put together showing Crash's early designs, so that'd be a start.
This would be my very first FAC, so any and all input would be appreciated. Thanks, Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
It's a very good article. You probably wouldn't have too much trouble getting it through FA. Here are some suggestions:
As you said, the article is lacking in the image department. I personally would recommend adding a video of crash's movement, and perhaps completing a short section of level one or two. Seeing a game being played really helps to give the reader a feel for it. I'd also recommend getting a visual of a Crate, a Wumpa Fruit, or some TNT to put in the gameplay section.
For the character and art design section, yes, some concept art would be good, but showing the frames of one of Crash's animations would also work.
Mention the perspective of the gameplay somewhere.
Since Tawna is "also evolved by Cortex,", make a mention of how Crash was made as well.
More to come, probably. Great job writing the article. Aven13 14:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@Aven13: Just had to figure out this gif thing, but went and addressed your points so far! Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
As Aven pointed out, the article looks in great shape, and I see a smooth FAC process. Although, here are some comments to make it easier.
(LEAD) "showcase forward-scrolling and side-scrolling perspectives." Perhaps link side-scrolling game in "side-scrolling perspectives"?
(LEAD) "video games during a cross-country trip from Boston to Los Angeles." The "from Boston to Los Angeles" bit is probably too specific for a lead, which is practically a summary. At least IMHO.
(LEAD) "The titular character was eventually named "Crash Bandicoot" for his"-- perhaps shorten to "Crash Bandicoot was named for his".
(LEAD) "and the game was unveiled at the 1996 Electronic Entertainment Expo." --> "and the game was unveiled at E3 1996."
(GAMEPLAY) "from a traditional side-scrolling perspective." Link side-scrolling game.
(GAMEPLAY) The first paragraph repeats the word "Crash" loads of times. If you wanna ask me for suggestion --- let's suppose sentence 1 has the word "Crash." Leave sentence 2 and 3 with "him" instead of "Crash", then have "Crash" at sentence 4. So in this case, sentence 2, 3, and 6 would have "him."
(GAMEPLAY) "Tawna's bonus rounds are the easiest and most plentiful"-- I think easy is subjective. Perhaps "designed to be the easiest" or "widely considered the easiest" etc.
(GAMEPLAY) "will grant Crash a gem"-- I don't think a link to gem is needed; it's common word.
(PLOT) "In a secluded archipelago 300 miles"-- should there be Template:Convert for those that use metric? GeraldWL 17:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
In the Bibliography section – "Meston, Zach (1996). Crash Bandicoot: The Official Strategy Guide. Dimension Publishing. ASIN B000OBI980" – where does this data come from? The ASIN does not mention Meston or 1996. (WorldCat does have listings for Meston, but which of them is the ref that is posted in the article?) – S. Rich (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
@Srich32977: I got the info from page 6 in the guide, but I scrounged around and got the OCLC for it. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because the last time ISS received a thorough review was over ten years ago. Once upon a time, I did a fair amount of copy-edit work with another major contributor to the article and eventually, it made it to FA. Since then, it has fallen from FA, and is rated as B and sometimes even C class in various projects. I would love to see it achieve GA status or even regain FA status once again, but I thought a good look-over might prove beneficial first.
Looking at getting this peer reviewed, as I've expanded it quite a bit and would like some feedback on what else needs improvement, and if anyone sees any glaring issues.
Looking for a peer review to identify issues or objections that would be brought up during a Feature Article nomination. It has been nearly two years since it has been promoted to a Good Article. In that time, I have periodically revisited it to give it a critical read to see where it can be improved. At this point, I think it is ready. Do you? Thank you. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it is an important historical part of computing history (and 470 other pages link to it). also i feel it shoukd be listed as importance "Top", it is that fundamental to computer science, however that is something that definitely needs some consensus and feedback on, you don't put computing articles at "top" without a good reason and careful consideration.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to try and bring the article to B-class, for preparation for potential GA nomination. I'm not experienced with writing articles although I have expanded this one in the past (from stub status to start), so I'd appreciate some guidance on bringing this up to par for B or, ideally GA status. The article is currently rated as start class according to the talk page, although with the expansions it has gone through, it would probably be considered C-class now.
I've listed this article for peer review because it looks fairly comprehensive and well cited for a GA, but can probably use some formatting and wording fixes (e.g. the Awards and Honours section).
I've listed this article for peer review because I have extensively updated it after it had been created by a sockfarm (banned). I would like some feedback on the neutrality of this article to maintain Wiki standards. I also hope to bring this bio up to a B-class.
I've listed this article for peer review because...Though I have tried to improve the article recently, not much information is available about the living person. I need to know more about what can be added / removed to avoid future GA failure. I welcome all inputs. Thank you.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS🍁 06:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it a GA, but it is way too professionally worded. I want to prepare it, but need some solid footing on where I can build this article. Please ping or contact me on my talk page when/if you want to start this review.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have made a large portion of its contributions (I'm the page creator and the only one to edit it this year) so it would be beneficial to get a second set of eyes.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was used as a reference by Youtube to determine whether certain channels were government funded. However, according to Webtekno, Youtube later stated that the information in the Wikipedia page was wrong.[1] By the way although Webtekno is an unreliable source per tr:WP:GKDP#Webtekno.com, many mainstream outlets cited their content.[2][3][4] I want to make this article as accurate as possible. Please tell me if there are any mistakes in it.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for FA status, which I haven't done before (I do have two articles passed as GA).
I've listed this article for peer review because... I want to get this article to GA status. I have had a look over it and it seems to be ok, no citation needed or general clean up tags. However, it is a large article and I may well have missed something. If others could have a look and give me an idea of what would be needed to bring it to GA status it would be much appreciated.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I am thinking of trying to get the article to a GA article, but I need advice on how to improve the article.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make this a featured article at some point in the future. I feel the article already meets the featured article criteria but I would love to get some detailed reviews about what could be improved in that respect.
Hi Volcanoguy, I haven't read the article, but I suggest nominating this article for Good Article status first before going to FAC. This will give the article a thorough review and lots of additional comments. I also suggest reviewing articles at WP:FAC, as this will help you get to know the FA criteria and build some goodwill with other editors, making them more likely to review this article when it is nominated. Lastly, you can find an FA mentor who will help go through an article and give additional comments. Z1720 (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720: I'm not new to FAC if that's what you're thinking. I've brought several articles to FA in the last 12 years, most recently Level Mountain in July. Volcanoguy 03:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you hadn't brought one to FAC yet because I didn't see any articles on your user page. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
How could I not review this? Except that I have been through it most carefully and can find nothing of the least importance to suggest by way of improvement. You need to tidy up the inverted commas – no curly ones, please (MoS) – and I'm not sure "half way" should be two separate words, and perhaps the same goes for "night time". In the para that begins "The canal was closed permanently in 1924, but Riley continued working near the lock. The 1930 U.S. Census lists Riley as a canal watchman..." I might make the second "Riley" just "him". Those are all the suggestions I have for tweaking this excellent article, which in my view should do fine at GAN. Tim riley talk 17:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
@Tim riley: - Thank you for looking at Riley's Lock. I made the "halfway" and "nighttime" changes, plus substituted "him" for "Riley" where you recommended. A search on Google agreed with the changes for halfway and nighttime. Can you give me an example of a curly comma? The article was written in a Wikipedia sandbox (not a word processor), so I thought all the commas and apostrophes would be OK. TwoScars (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Just a couple or so of curly ones in the sources, which I've now fixed. Tim riley talk 16:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I'll bet it was caused where I copied a title from the web page and pasted it in. Should have re-typed it. Thanks for the help. Is John Riley a distant-distant relative? TwoScars (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
If you attempt to count the Rileys descended from Irish emigrants, of whom I am one, you will use up a considerable amount of computer memory. There are a lot of us about. If you take this article to GAN or FAC please ping me and I'll look in. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 19:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the New Albion article is ready to take the next step, namely FA status. I've had a few pieces of advice which I've followed, but nothing which is comprehensive. One particular editor recently stepped in and archived all the websites which were used as sources. All the sources are, I believe, high quality. I've author linked all that I can. I even wrote two new articles about authors just so they could be author linked. Those who are not author linked are of a very high quality, recognized authors in their field.
A GA was awarded after what I believe was a very thorough assessment. You can read it HERE. The article has been significantly improved since then, so I believe it is ready. Kind regards, Hu Nhu (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Niagara
"Initially, details of Drake's voyage were suppressed, and Drake's sailors were pledged not to disclose their route under threat of death." — What was the reason for this? I'm assuming it was to keep the Spanish from finding it.
"...concluded that the Indians believed him and his crew to be gods...", "Most likely the Indians..." — Is the term Indian the most accurate for this context? Unless Drake specifically refers to them as Indians, natives (or something similar) might be better.
For centuries, you use both words (sixteenth-century and seventeenth-century), and numerals (20th century and 21st century). For consistency, I would choose one style or the other.
"Describing their lack of seamanship experience and navigational knowledge, Davidson recognises a plethora of confusion, chiefly from armchair historians which include distinguished persons such as Samuel Johnson and Jules Verne." — Who's lacking? I would reverse the sentence to clarify that it's the armchair historians.
Suggest: "Davidson recognises a plethora of confusion from armchair historians, which included Samuel Johnson and Jules Verne, owing to their lack of seamanship experience and navigational knowledge."
Nice set-up for your references and the usage of WP:CITESHORT. To ensure consistency, I would make sure that consecutive page numbers are seperated with the En-dash, and only non-consecutive pages use a comma.
Interesting article. The closest I've been to New Albion was a visit to Point Bonita. I hope this helps, if I notice anything else I'll add it here. Niagara Don't give up the ship 00:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello and thank you Niagara. This certainly does help. I absolutely concur with you comments and will soon make the changes you suggest. And please do let me know of anything else you might see.
One other editor has indicated that in lieu of a FA mentoring that he also take a quick look at the article--which he will do when he returns from holiday. I look at FAs and think this one is close. I am excited to nominate it after it has some further comments from editors such as you. Kind regardsHu Nhu (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to Good Article. It is probably unusual for a small populated place to even have a Wikipedia page. However, Seneca was once an important place on the C&O Canal, had a mine that provided sandstone to buildings in Washington, had a minor role in one of the scandals that plagued U.S. Grant, was the site of an important radio astronomy discovery, and currently has excellent outdoor recreation facilities.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like feedback on what improvements will need to be made for consideration as a featured article, as it would be my first nomination. The article passed GA earlier today with Wugapodes providing insightful feedback. I also plan on taking pictures of the skyline that Commons and other free-license websites lack, as I have the equipment to do this.
Thanks, dekema (Formerly Buffaboy) (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
{{lang|nl|Jonge Tobias}} -> Correct pronounciation for text-to-speech.
I am not sure what this is referring to? Should I put the pronunciation in the first sentence?
If you use the lang template around non-English words, text-to-speech software will know how to pronounce it. No need to put in the pronunciation otherwise. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Like much of the Rust Belt, Buffalo has focused on recovering from the effects of late-20th-century deindustrialization. needs citation
After the Revolutionary War, settlers from New England and eastern New York began to move into the area. needs citation
With changing demographics and an increased number of refugees from other areas on the city's East Side -> I'm not sure this is supported by the source (FN118, FN119 comes closer at a quick glance). It is the area east of the city or the east part of the city? What is special about the East side?
The term Bible-minded is a bit weird. I'm not sure it's due, but if you think it is, it needs explaining.
The sports section seems underreferenced. Are you sure Buffalo Beauts play in a minor league? This section may benefit from talking about normal/nonprofessional sport too
The Great recession started in 2007. The source you cited only shows the house prices, not whether Buffalo did well overall in the recession
I think you can just say Tesla, instead of adding Inc.
ethnic restaurants -> dunno about US English, but to my ears this sounds a bit insensitive to race, pretending that white people are the normal and don't have an ethnicity.
Is it necessary to list that many highways? Feels a bit unbalanced with the section about walking/cycling.
runs at grade -> dunno what that means
The Buffalo area has a larger-than-average pay disparity than the rest of the U.S -> between men/women, between white/POC?
The table with private employment has two empty columns. Is there a reason to not mention public employment?
FN244: don't shout in titles, even if the original source does
I'm going to leave prose nit-picking to others. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking of nominating it as a good article and would welcome any comments on how to improve it so it would pass GAN. Any general comments would be much appreciated too! If it helps, I've based the structure of the article on Wicklow Way which is currently a GA.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that it would make a great featured list for the Rivers and Minnesota projects. There are two other Lists of longest streams in U.S. states (Oregon and Idaho). This article on Minnesota's longest streams is comparable and has some additional features not in other articles. There is another page for List of rivers of Minnesota. I would be interested in comments that would help this article get to the point of a featured list.
The current review seeks to get the article closer to a featured article standard. I believe the resources I've cited are so plentiful that there might be little to add (though any editor with some fairly decent knowledge of Lithuanian, or better, is welcome to find more resources, particularly Lithuanian scholarship). I can say for now that I don't think you'll find more sources in English, Russian, or Polish.
Mindaur has said that the intro to the blockade is too long and should be included in other articles, and some info in the Impacts/Rising tensions with the minorities might be unnecessary; I would like to seek comments about that issue in particular, but do make a review of the rest of the pieces. A question might arise about the fact photos are not abundant in the article - unfortunately I was not able to gain consent to upload relevant photos to the Wikimedia Commons, so oops, they are not there. Links to them are provided in external links.
This article is essentially a translation of the article in German Wikipedia which was written by myself. I nominated it for the good articles, but the nomination failed. English is not my first language, I'm not too used to producing English prose, and even though I did my best to the amend linguistic issues that were raised in the GA review, I am positive that a peer review by someone more familiar with the subtleties of English grammar is the right way to continue.
I'd like to know if the phrasing is clear and encyclopedic throughout the entire text, if the grammar is right, and whether the article is ready to be renominated as good article, or possibly even as a featured article.
I've listed this article for peer review because it concerns a fairly obscure topic that I've put a lot of effort into researching. I'd like some thoughts on the state of this article and tips on how to improve it - I've also got scans/copies of the sources used here if needed for verification, I doubt most editors outside of the state of Victoria would be able to find these books. Apologies if this is the wrong category, by the way, feel free to move it if needed. Wasn't sure where this should go.
Thanks, LivelyRatification (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I want to take this article to FAC someday. I'm pretty proud of it right now, but I really think it could be better. Cheers, Roniiustalk to me 13:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because…
Noteworthy subject deserving WP featured article status.
Thanks, – S. Rich (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, thanks for working on this article. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
"Because burials of seven countries' graves were" --> subject verb agreement issue ("burials" and "graves"): suggest rewording (or just removing "burials of")
"The numbers are 885 British troops, in accordance with the English customs of the dead" -- I am not quite sure what this sentence is attempting to say. Suggest rewording
for FAC, I tink this will need a reference: "The end of the eight pillars supporting the roof was designed as a bowl and a symbol representing the moment and the eternity, expressing a soft and solemn standing for the soldiers."
suggest adding more bibliographic details to Reference # 44
suggest making the date format consistent; there are at least three styles used at the moment in the article, e.g. "2020-09-26", "15 September 2019" and "March 29, 2019"
suggest adding a page number and year of publication for Reference # 70
suggest adding references to the table in the Total burials section
I'm putting this article here for a review because though I'm done with my article. However, I would prefer an article review or nothing, as I have a one-way view, and would like some more support or any assistance in sources/grammar issues
Couple months ago, I sent this article to FAC and had to withdraw it because the prose wasn't quite there yet. I figured I should take the advice given at the review and take the article here. It would be great to get some fixes relating to the FAC criteria (and an idea on what I should've done in hindsight) before I try FAC again later on. Nova Crystallis(Talk) 01:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because the article certainly can be organized better. For example, the question of cannibalism is discussed in great detail in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of Age and taphonomy; fire is brought up in a lot of detail in taphonomy, palaeoenvironment, and its own section fire; and most sections are incredibly long and could use some subdivisions but I can't think of any logical ones. Also, comments on general grammar and readability would be appreciated
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I would like some help to format it according to Wikipedia's canons
Thanks, Max Peltuinum (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it's the first new article I have written and I want to get it up to standard. I'm interested to see whether it is clear for someone who is less familiar with the subject matter than I am, and whether the reviewer feels the structure is appropriate. Also, obviously, I want to iron out any weakness in the prose.
I have brought one article through FAN and another through GAN (both biographies), but this is the first article I've written from scratch about a written work, so I'm wondering if there are any issues I'm not seeing that would keep it from GA or even FA status. Is it comprehensive without being too granular? I appreciate any time you can spend looking this over.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been considering nominating it for GA eventually, but I don't have a lot of experience in politics or language-related articles, so I'm having difficulty assessing any gaps or weaknesses. I've also been the article's only major contributor since I performed an overhaul in 2016, so it would be grand to hear a second opinion, especially because the subject matter is politically charged.
I'm generally looking for a broad second opinion, but I am a little concerned about the weight being given to various elements and about the competency of my summarizations. Some advice on usage examples—whether there's too many, there could stand to be more non-fiction literary, some literary could be swapped out for older ones, more other political speeches—would be appreciated; the wikisource texts on the talk page may be of use there.
Thanks, ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
There are a few distinct articles which may be linked to this article to improve it viz. specific shelters around the world. They may have to be searched for manually for each country to link them together. Sideriver84 (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sideriver84: Thanks for your response and inputs. It's a good suggestion. And status and issues on shelters of globally many countries is not yet covered in the article that concerns me.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article was recently just protected and before it has been subject to significant amounts of vandalism and incorrect information. I am not an expert on this subject, but because of the past, it is unclear as to whether or not this article is actually accurate and/or contains significant amounts of inaccuracies.I believe this article needs to be reviewed by an expert to ensure that this article is not biased and fully encompasses the topic. Additionally, I would love to have this article be one of Wikipedia's top articles considering the relevancy of the subject in political discourse in the United States today …
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some feedback in a few areas. Is the detail about the court process too extensive? Do I use too many dates? Is the language -particularly in reference to the seventeen year old and fourteen year old - too repetitive?
Otherwise, I think I've covered my bases in this article, but would love to hear if you think it's missing something crucial.
I enjoyed reading this article. To answer your questions: No. No. A little; I suggest referring to 17yo as X17 and the 14yo as X14. I copy-edited and trimmed the article in an effort to make it read more sharply.
On covering the bases:
1. There's something missing between these two lines:
"The trial subsequently "collapsed".[43] with the Director of Public Prosecutions deciding not to proceed with the charge.[17][44]"
"On Friday 23 July 2021, the fourteen year old teenager, who was sixteen at the time of sentencing, was sentenced to two years detention followed by two years of community supervision.[42]"
2. Re:
"Political response
After Blair's death, which occurred during a period of unusually high rates of violent crime in Cork[54][55][56] and across Ireland,[57] increased pressure was placed on Taoiseach Leo Varadkar's government to reduce violent crime in Ireland.[58] Micheál Martin, then leader of the opposition, claimed that Varadkar's government was "losing control" of the nation.[58] This, combined with gangland shootings in Dublin, made violent crime a central election issue in the 2020 Irish general election.[5]"
What did the government do, if anything, to reduce violent crime in Ireland? How did this play out in the general election?
3. "The sentencing judge described the case as "almost incomprehensible".[61]
What was the judge referring to when he described the case as "almost incomprehensible".?
4. Re:
"The seventeen year old, O'Connor, and the fourteen year old all produced knives and began to threaten the occupants of the house.[7][13][14] The knife which would be used by the seventeen year old to murder Blair was 21cm long.[15] While O'Connor was later charged with producing an article capable of causing serious harm,[16] the fourteen year old wielded a butter knife and so was not charged with the same offense.[17]"
Could you add something about "knife culture" i.e. the increasing prevalence, at least in the UK and Ireland(?) of knife crime?
5. Re:
"The murder of Cameron Blair occurred on 16 January 2020, when he was fatally stabbed in the neck at a house party on the Bandon Road in Cork, Ireland."
(2) Regarding the second issue, I'm not sure if this event actually prompted anything more than politicians talking about doing something, at least I haven't been able to find anything
which says otherwise.
(3) Due to the law surrounding the protection of the identities of minors, it is illegal to reproduce what that judge was referring to here, though a lot of Irish people familiar with
the case would know. This is why it is included in the sources, but not explained.
Would I be best just striking that line completely?
(4) Over the coming days I will see if I can address knife culture in Ireland, though I'm not sure that I can
(5) I've put in a request for someone to add a map, because I can't for the life of me work out how to do it.
Thanks again for all your help! Xx78900 (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I wonder whether this article is sufficiently understandable and detailed for a GA nomination.
Thanks, Tommyren (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Ichthyovenator
For posterity's sake, I'm not knowledgeable on this topic at all, which means I cannot verify the information within. I'm only offering comments based on the reading experience, and I recommend that you also try to find a second reviewer who is more versed in the subject at hand.
Comments:
In the lead, the aim of the study is not introduced until the last sentence. IMO this should be introduced as early as possible, maybe as the second sentence?
"Within each city, hospitals were sampled and births were sampled in each hospital" - the wording is a bit convoluted; also not sure you need to say hospitals were sampled here since it is already alluded to that hospitals were worked in in the first sentence of the section. Perhaps the entire paragraph can be simplified somehow?
Under "Research questions and topics", the meanings of some of two terms are unclear to me (perhaps explanations could be added in parentheses): "household roster and demographics" and "child care/kindergarten characteristics at three and five"
Under "Funding and management" you could link Princeton University and Columbia University
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope that I can make this article a Featured Article. This article was recently promoted to GA and I was surprised while originally writing the article. I initially thought that Beverly White would be a short start class article, but I instead found that she was a very active person and deserved far more.
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
This article is the best resource for the topic on the Internet and I've exhausted all the sources I wanted to cite. Looking for any suggestions or feedback before taking it to WP:FAC. Appreciate your time! czar 20:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I've tried to get this article peer reviewed, but someone responded to it and I think it messed up the process because it got archived.
Anyway. I'm basically looking for feedback to improve the article. All (to my knowledge) available information has been included in this article, and I want to see what might need a repair.
Hi, NowIsntItTime. I've given the article just an initial look, so I will start with some things I spotted quickly and circle back with some more comments after a detailed read-through:
The article is inconsistent about what date format is used. Since Rodriguez was from Spain but lived with an American family, you could use either day-month-year or month-day-year, but you should pick one and do it consistently.
Footnote 24 is a dead link, you should see if there is an updated URL or an archive you could use.
Footnote 15 appears to be to an article in the journal Aggression and Violent Behavior, but the citation details are jumbled.
The phrase "End Times" is in a couple of places pipe-linked to Armageddon, which is a place, not a time or event. This seems to go against WP:EGG. A plain link would redirect to the End times article, which seems like a reasonable destination.
I spotted at least one instance where "The Family" was rendered as "the Family". I'm no expert on the group, but my understanding is that it is usually referred to with the (non-standard) capitalization of "The Family".
There some citations to news sources with no links and no page numbers. If these were online news, there should be links (even if the link is now dead). If they were print news, there should be page numbers. You could even have both, but having neither creates a verification difficulty. I noticed this on at least footnotes 1, 27, and 28; there might be others that I didn't spot.
More to come. --RL0919 (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your initial comments, @RL0919:. I fixed the format, and updated as many footnotes as I could; however it was saved by the Cult Education Institute, not the original publisher or Web Archive. Does this pose a problem? Another big issue is that the citations 27 and 28 are not available on a newspaper archive at all, so I can't find or add the pages. I did happen to find web link archives for 27 and 28, but as you can see they are dead links that only proved they existed once. What should I do about this? Does this mean I have to remove these citations because they're not verifiable?
I fixed the End Times link, as well as The Family's lack of capitalization. -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 21:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
An archive in a neutral location would be better than one on an advocacy website, but at least it provides an opportunity to see the content. For the pages with no archives, it looks like the Palo Verde Valley Times text is reproduced here (another advocacy site archive). The URL for the Tucson Citzen looks like it may have been a website-only piece; the print issue for that date is available on Newspapers.com and doesn't contain the cited article. So that may need to be removed. In theory a print source is verifiable without a link, but a non-archived deadlink for a web-only source is essentially unverifiable. --RL0919 (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Okay, @RL0919:. I changed it to the advocacy site archive. I also found another exfamily archive for the Tucson Citizen article displaying the full text and the page it was taken from. I also fixed the last dead links in this article, so every citation has a web link.
Awaiting your further comments then :) -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 15:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because as the creator, I would value some feedback on neutrality, encyclopedic tone, etc., and the possibility of improving its grade/rating.
Please note these are my opinions (I’m not a very experienced editor)
I think the article should link to Nadine Dorries in the section Accusations against Nadine Dorries because what if people don’t know who she is (like me).
The page currently links to a deleted page Shadow Minister for Diverse Communities which I think should be removed. I think there should be more images (there is only one). Sahaib3005 (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it is my first Wikipedia article I've ever written, and have included a lot more content than previous. I would really appreciate if anyone had the time to take a look!
I've listed this article for peer review because I have significantly improved this article from a stub. I am doing this for a university unit project. By the time that I finish editing it (2 June 11:59 PM AEST), it will have images, citations and significant information. I would greatly appreciate any feedback and an assessment of what the class of the article is. I have linked it to the politics WikiProject, and it was already linked to the Social Work Project. Any help or feedback would be super helpful.
Hi Ojorojo - I'm not an expert on featured lists. However, I can see "Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation" for references 18, 23, 26, 60, and 65. TwoScars (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@TwoScars: Thanks for taking the time. I double checked, but can't find any problems: no "Harv error..." and clicking on the refs leads to the entries in "References", just like they should. All of the citations in the table "Refs" column are formatted the same. Sometimes my computer doesn't display properly, but otherwise don't have an explanation. Do you have any ideas? —Ojorojo (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I changed some setting long ago that allows me to see those problems. I have no idea how I did it. For Footnote 18 Moseley has year 2000 instead of 1996. For Footnote 26 Oaklahoma Today has year 1991 instead of 1999. The others probably have something similar. TwoScars (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Very helpful. I've fixed those and will go through the rest. Thanks again. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Looks clean now. TwoScars (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Some citations have locations like "Farmington Hills, Michigan", "Oxford, England", etc. while most of the others don't have. I'll suggest to remove it for maintaining consistency.
"Voices from the Heartland: A Cultural History of the Blues" needs publisher, which appears to be University of California Press
"The Blues Foundation" – either pipe 'The' inside the link, or remove 'The'
"Dictionnaire du Blues: Les Dictionnaires d'Universalis" – provide translation inside square brakets
Although not necessary, and completely up-to you, I'll suggest to separate books, articles/magazines/journals, and news sources by using suitable subheadings.
The sole image needs ALT text.
I'm not an expert, but is the list complete? Are there no other blues standards?
If all the above comments are addressed, I don't think there would be any other major issues, thus it should be suitable for direct nomination. All other issues would be relatively minor ones, which can be addressed during the review. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the changes. A previous version had the selection criteria, which got lost and now has been re-added. Thank you for your comments. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed the sorting issue with the table, particularly in the 'First recorded by' column. When sorted, it goes like 'Bo Diddley; Lucille Bogan; Eddie Boyd'. Similar issue in 'Charting single(s) by' column. I'll suggest to keep 'Charting single(s) by' column un-sortable, and using {{sortname}} template in 'First recorded by' column. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
It didn't quite work as hoped, so I removed the sorting option from "Charting" column. In the "First" column, several of the names are stage names, which are alphabetized by the first word rather than the last ("Guitar Slim" is indexed under "G" rather than "S"). Some are more obvious than others – Diddley, Waters, Wolf are not real nor legal last names; Maceo, Walter are first names. But I doubled checked and switched from data-sort-value= to {{sortname}}. Thanks again. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for Featured List.
Thanks, Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 10:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest to include another column or two to the list with the information for how long or until which season the given player played for the club, and with the number of matches played for the club. Of course, whether this is doable depends on the presence of reliable sources. Maybe further statistics like how many foreign players from their respective countries or continental federations signed with SC East Bengal would be another beneficial addition. → «« Man77 »» 16:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Man77 thanks for the feedback Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 19:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
Not done: per 
.jpg){kind=link}
